Agenda 04/27/2010 Item # 6B
Agenda Item No. 68
April 27, 2010
Page 1 of 46
Office of the County Manager
Leo E. Ochs, Jr.
3301 East Tamiami Trail' Naples Florida 34112. (239) 252-8383' FAX: (239) 252-4010
April 14,2010
Mr. Terry Daley
1265 Briarwood Court
Naples FL 34104
Re: Public Petition Request regarding level of road noise
Dear Mr. Daley:
Please be advised that you are scheduled to appear before the Collier County Board of
Commissioners at the meeting of April 27, 2010, regarding the above referenced
subject.
Your petition to the Board of County Commissioners will be limited to ten minutes.
Please be advised that the Board will take no action on your petition at this meeting.
However, your petition may be placed on a future agenda for consideration at the
Board's discretion. If the subject matter is currently under litigation or is an on-going
Code Enforcement case, the Board will hear the item but will not discuss the item after it
has been presented. Therefore, your petition to the Board should be to advise them of
your concern and the need for action by the Board at a future meeting.
The meeting will begin at 9:00 a.m. in the Board's Chambers on the Third Floor of the W.
Harmon Turner Building (Building "F") of the government complex. Please arrange to be
present at this meeting and to respond to inquiries by Board members.
If you require any further information or assistance, please do not hesitate to contact this
office.
Sincerely, \
//;~ ../~. /~
Mike Sheffield
Assistant to the County Manager
MJS:mjb
ee: Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney
Norman Feder, Transportation Services Administrator
''''''''''''''''''''''l<'_''''''"_"'''.;;;.;..''~.''~'"''"'''"':'~_~'._''_)''''';''''~__'''"'"':,,-'-''''_____-,..'''-..~---...
Agenda Item No. 68
April 27, 2010
Page 2 of 46
Reauest to Soeak under Public Petition
Please print
Name: \ ~'i () ~I
Address: I 'L (..1 c:; 13 f2.t 4rL \..\1 !-? DO
-.td. A-'(? l~ -Ptl>f2.4..-'O A-
Phone: f:s t\ -l '2> Ll. DO '-11
Date ofthe Board Meetina you wish to sneak:
~ u f2-7I
3'-ll!:>L\
'41.
A?e., L 2 7 - 2 D) t::>
Must circle yes or no:
Is this subject matter under litigation at this time? Vea Iii!:>
Is this subject matter an ongoing Code Enforcement case? Ves ~
Note: If either answer is "yes", the Board will hear the item but will have no
discussion regarding the item after It Is presented.
Please eXDlain in detail the reason YOU are reauestina to speak (attach additional
pace if necessary):
A-N un CLec~~p -t-t-vt..tz k~T CJ+ e~{) ~
I',J t:>-t3.....t ~ c 1--'( fn...,LJL1",,---Z tA A.A;::;~ I e~_~-u-.,,-<j_~
(/ . . ..1!.- .
,.A_~'L_A...Jl,-~~a.....~ Q...\-c-
Please explain in detail the action you are askinc the Commission to take (attach
additional pace if necessary):
l~Y\-~:.t^-kJ.. *-.~ . 0,_ fJ./~"'Y\ ---bu L.tJ\ .c..c--*
CL ''\.'~o....A ('Y\....-\.....I~.~<<..:.~\..k...e-v'l Lt..) ct._l...l O../'V~
Q/~\f~ ~~'-4'~C!L~^LlL~
-t:.l.-t. h:~.l/Y-Y'_A- C!J..JalA_:L;,- (ft \.~--l . -t:-\.~-=*
L/) CASV"VlA,.....c.L"-A,( .('1. V'rL lJ t....' J':~t C:~~f\ f~.A.... c~" ,
C:\Documents and Settlngs\TenydlLocal Settings\Tempotaty Internet Flles\ContenlIES\SN016XA4\FORM%20-
%20Public%20Petition%20Request(1).doc
c(;
I A^ f ,I , Agjl~lt~ No 68
VuO J '2. Wa..l..<c....:I!-1~/.GdAf>riI27, 2'010
~ I Page 3 of 46
Petition for Sound Barrier
North end of Briarwood
/' Livingston Rd. I Briarwood Court
\,,1 , /'" /;7 --,, 7
l),)~f~'t."w'~ /12-J>" ~~ dij.
l.. if\. ' . l II ~ '
2) 1'.~ yi,"I.."i n" f I '1. 4 --(; v "' I ~ ~ '
j / '1.A v :,Iv,vJZ.,
:: ~~tJM-- .... ...~
5) C _. C'~.
6)~..~'
7)~~ .
8)~~\ C,V(();k~J
9) ~~1. fJ4~~;1?~
10)"-, K ~
11) ~~~.L,f....fJ..... ~ ,:1J.o Co
\ I : L.lA'~.0LA-
::~ }j;;;:./iJ
" . ) //' /7 /
14) , ;,('//'" (~(!t. v'" /~... e
/" /,"'/11 - / (",,<'7-
] 5{'J. "d4t..lAA_- !VuALZ1t <,A4.
~ J
16) 1< ~ ,.t ~\ To J'Y\.'p j.( r ~ :)
. j \lj) H; .t f\^l
:: j;;)~/ lW,C,{O!H-
19) ..~ tv~.--9
20)-i~~}
'Z~
) \ \7_ ~-ot, el. I)l,VO
/ t-Wt? 'Br' ?< c"l.AJ!J r, d (' ~.
lay? fJl1;M.W ,tiIJ f!,/vcl
1005 7iV~ )..a/1e..
I ~;JJ. /dA.u~ U
\., ~ 0 ~ ~}1}JYlCA-V\I ~ C-j
/ c?f?-? 8na-;r ~ e:/:
\ I .~ 4 G lZ) (~l..J0d~ $~
'I
'L1'~1J --reR v..A ~ rue:> LANe
~.
I Li t.i1 L(/\/tCL 1- t-- l/ l f1;11U2--
991 -r I ~ ~l '" " L~t'\l e
/tJ.d,...~ '7f ~rA-~ ~, ---f-.
i" <.f ')- 1.L~ {J",;, I
CA ;1-- '1- /J - \;/1 I, v () .
_ I ./'512... (\~ \o1.J 0 ~ ,:j . -J
0t/l B~"iAQ...\';\i'0d fsL L\J
1 ,I 17
7b 7 ~,~ J~t r i{){1"fC/'i /5/ tl CYJ
't s-~ t1l2.tt ~e._;.::(J P-J....:,-JC:'j
'11/ )" \~L.A, vvu-ce C::rl
From: terry daley [mailto:naplesteny@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 8:23 PM
To: CasalanguidaNick
Subject: Sound Barriers I Livingston Rd.
Agenda Item No. 68
April 27, 2010
Page 4 of 46
Nick
Thank you for speaking with me today in regards to us trying to get a sound barrier wall behind our
recentl~ ~urchased h?use in ~riarwood. Our c~nt situation is that the back of our house literally backs
up to LiVIngston Rd m the Bnarwood commumty.Most of the community south of the gaurd. gate
currently has sound barriers with a few exceptions. I have spoke with a few of those residents and they
have stated that the wall although not a true sound barrier, does help reduce noise. The north end of the
community that my wife and I live in is in a cuI de sac and consist of 5 houses that back to Livingston
( 3 have hurricane shutters up to block the road noise 24/7/365 ) and 6 that are across the street from us
as well as neighboring houses and aroWld the lake. We all suffer greatly due to the noise. Just this past'
.
i~_
saturday night my wife and I had a few friends over and with 10 people around a table, all within 8 fe~t. ,..:
of each other there was more than a few times that we all had to stop speaking due to the fact that road' .
noise was SO loud we couldnt hear the person next to us on MANY occasions. This is a daily occurence
and the noise transfers inside the house as well, tractor trailers, motorcycles, cars with modified exhaust
and traffic in general greatly DIMINISH our quality of life and the ability to enjoy our new home and
the pool we have as well. This is a 24 hour situation as the Industrial Park never sleeps. Your help in
resolving this situation is greatly appreciated.
In a neighborhood of 41 0 houses, we are the only 11 directly without the benefit of a soundwall, not to
mention my neighbors lakeside as well residents further south along Briarwood Blvd... A recent study in
Missouri showed that 65db is considered to be a nuisance and can stop a conversation between 2 people
sitting only 2 feet away from each other. Our $ituation if you checked it would greatly exceed 65db. I
would be willing to bet that the level being generated by the traffic is definately over 100.
Once agian I appreciate your help in resolving this and giving us the chance to enjoy our new home as
any Naples resident should be able to without having to literally stop conversations as vehicles go by. If
you have any questions at all, please feel free to contact me at anytime 239-784-0047
Terry & Amy Daley
1265 Briarwood Court
Naples, FI. 34104
239-784-0047
Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. if you do not want your e-mail address released :1'1 response to a public records request do
nOI send ,,1'CClronic mall to tbls entltv, il1stead, contact tills office bv teleDl10ne or In writino
Laserfiche WebLink
Clerk's Office
Fees
Records Search
Browse
Search
li
It ,.ij) :,--.~ O~) RR
h~J ",I'
Template: Collier County BMR
Doc Type
Ordinance
Meeting Type
Regular
Date
Last Modified
Agenda Item No. 68
April 27, 2010
Page 5 of 46
Help I.ly 'NebLlI1k LoaGld
Recordi na
Court Divisions
Clerk To The Board
Ccu.eers
Links
Forms
.:!l '!J Pal/El 11 af37 Go
.....~~...,~".O(2)~32%..--."_........_~;~;~~-~.;......t~'~~
BMR> Boards. Minute~. and Reconls > BMR Valldaled Ordinances> 2008 Ordinances~'
.1
..I......1Ii "'11 "1Iii In 1M "IN"" b.. ...&.. ...... JJIt
ft'J1Suured. IDuD4 ~.....d. Ibr !mlIrIlIMIm wlOl tbfI ~t1 r :QN~MI.t.MW Il:m~r.
ohd.lI& tht~ .ol......III\tAd.-.......r 1.......t _ ~ .n....l.__
I...t:waJ __.... (War a m1ntwn'MI .--ton. mFaimtltSallMMnda. dl:l".CKPD.dan: fbr
-tht--~- 1I'0000nr.l.ol........*-'i t..a. No jIIrDlllllal1
hbW. ohaImof, .w.y, I'IIIift. p-s ill Il11 'lrI:Y. itIIdI:ftn wIlb, or atImapt to
lIUIftre wIlh my IUlII<<iad ..... w&itc br: arlha . III llle ~ Ill! *'1iet
~IoIllllOr~. TIla&...s ~"""",iA.MW.I&IWfta.t1ollllllll.
....~. iltJMLUftMIl:........ ni_ ad.~......"K\,Lw...;;j .....
~_.........thLt~
'tABU J
l.aII~ 11IM IaeIICU of TIIIOI gt~1G11'~ I ..... .....1....
tiI~ ............. .ltllr llalt (A4)
4Al lWQ
1l.aoldooafUl 7.00 ...... t\> 10:00 p.lll. 50 .u
AJllIr 10: I>> p .... .. .7Jm. H9 un. 55 67
7:OO..m..'" IOlGOp... 65 77
0llIImImi1l cr 1llI:I!&l
Ak 10.00 p..1ll. _ 2l!lll tftI9..111. till .u
~gTiIafaalIW Al.1l11l11111 75 II
J.&tIollll'lllll Joj .n ... 7S II
.. U~lI"1M.._1MAI..............daY1i*""'Ii!M.m&IIIIGI-""'t.l; II
IIIIIi8II\t.
(I) 1IWt.~ JI.... ..,1\.. W"..... ...........114 ........ ........
hi .dttl ~~ tJ.& MI t. _hi... It" ..~ ... ita _"Mot alMlf
.".... ~ .1IIi.1...TlWlrr."u- ..',.... ...1Il... -':f-I1'
. .... ~'J. At1f r..1~al. ..~. iNilntW. ..,. 1JIIItlaI'iIl...
.llf..... ~ ~.&.tlAtt__" "IIRy~.' """'fir~Mn6l"'''JlPuJ rJ~'
.. ~rrtT.U 1 U.n.' fr!ttlfi1lr II. ..... ....... .,11.11. .ail.
....lMl~..I..I' 1""- II'T . .tr~1a..lIIIllI. _....,.. ~811h.
Poto II"",
.._llllfIIilirai...lIll_".................-~
http://apps.collierclerk.comIBMRldocview.aspx ?id=45085
1/27/2010
O)OCD
CO..--.:r
.0_
ON 0
Z ....:CD
'0)
Cl
- ('tl
. 0..0...
('tl<(
"0
c:
0)
!f
OlOZ/ll1v
jdf96~tZt9EZL6Sc;O~p5C 0 1 OZ-J~!uOjJ.lIlc4nojtUoo'JaS!1Widmamoo'sdtnnjf.duq
I JO I ~irnd
Agenda Item No. 68
Study 2 April 27, 2010
Logging (1 Minute) LEO LMAX LPe.k LN10 LN90 Page 7 Ci1'A6
6:42:35 AM 55.8dS 728dB 82.8dB 69 4dB 61.1dB
6:43:35 AM 65.2dB 70.7dS 81.3dS 68.0dB 61 3dB
6:44:35 AM 67.9dB 77.0dB a6.0dS 71.7dB 57.3dB
6:45:35 AM 64.OdB 69.1dB 80.9dB 66.2dB 58AdB
6:46:35 AM 65 4dB 746dB 86.5dB 69 OdB 56.1dB
6:47:35 AM 66 8dB 71.4dB 82.8dB 69 6dS 62 OdB
6:48:35 AM 66.9dB 71.6dB 82.6dB 6a.8dS 64.2dB
6:49:35 AM 63.2dB 71.5dB 82.4dB 67.7dB 55.6dB
6:50:35 AM 65 7dB 729dS as. OdS 69 OdB 562dB
6:51:35 AM 66 3dB 72.0dB 83.1dB 69 2dB 624dB
6:52:35 AM 55.0dB 70.6dB 82.4dB 68.4dB 57 5dB
6:53:35 AM 64.ad8 68.9dB 80.5dB 671dB 60.9dB
6:54:35 AM 65 adB 71.1dB 83AdB 67.9dB 62 6dB
6:55:35 AM 63.6dB 69.2dB 80.2dB 66.8dB 56.8dB
6:56:35 AM 66.5dB 69.9dB 81.7dB 68AdB 62.4dB
6:57:35 AM 66.8dB 78 2dB 87.4dB 69.6dB 59.6dB
6:58:35 AM 67.7dB 79.7dB 87.adB 71.2dB 58 9dB
6:59:35 AM 67.6dB 75.0dB 86.1 dB 70,5dB 64.0dB
7:00:35 AM 62.8dB 69 1dB 80.8dB 654dB 587dB
7:01 :35 AM 71.0dB 84.1dB 96.3dB 73AdB 57.5dB
7:02:35 AM 66.3dB 73.1dB 84.4dB 68,8dB 61.6dB
7:03:35 AM 63.adB 71.7dB 82.7dB 67 5dB 54,2dB
7:04:35 AM 68.9dB 51.3dB 93.idB 68.9dB 61.9dB
7:05:35 AM 65.7dB 71.1dB 82.9dB 67.1 dB 63.5dB
7:06:35 AM 62.7dB 68 7dB 80.5dB 66 5dB 56.1 dB
7:07:35 AM 67.OdB 72.9dB 86.5dB 69 4dB 59.9dB
7:08:35 AM 65.9dB 72.4dB 84.6dB 68.8dB 62.4dB
7:09:35 AM 63.5dB 59.8dB 82.1dB 66.9dB 58.2dB
7:10:35 AM 64.adB 70 4dB 81.2dB 67.2dB 51 6dB
711'35 AM 68.3dB 77.3dB 88.2dB 70.8dB 64.2dB
7:12:35 AM 66.1dB 71 2dB 830dB 69,OdB 591dB
7:13:35 AM 67.8dB 78.1dB 89.6dB 69.2dB 62.2dB
7:14:35 AM 68.6dB 75.2dB 89AdB 72 3dB 61 5dB
7:15:35 AM 6530B 74 OdB 84.9dB 67.2dB 60 1 dB
7:16:35 AM 66.2dB 73.2dB 84.2dB 68.5dB 587dB
7: 17:35 AM 62.9dB 70.6dB 81.2dB 67.1dB 562dB
7:18:35 AM 64.2dB 72.3dB 84.adB 676dB 57.0dB
7:19:35 AM 65.7dB 70.2dB 81.2dB 68.6dB 61.9dB
7:20:35 AM 62.7dB 68.2dB 79.7dB 65.8dB 57 4dB
7:21 :35 AM 67.5dB 70.9dB 82.6dB 69.2dB 65.4dB
7:22:35 AM 67.9dB 794dB 91.1dB 70.0dB 59.0dB
723:35 AM 65.3dB 702dB 82.5dB 58.2dB 59.7dB
7:24:35 AM 55.6dB 69 6dB 82.3dB 68AdB 60.9dB
7:25:35 AM 64.5dB 75.5dB B6AdB 66.5dB 5B.4dB
7:26:35 AM 69.1dB 80 OdB 92.4dB 73.5dB 60 7dB
7:27:35 AM B8,3dB 75.9dB 87.1dB 71.7dB 51 7dB
7:28:35 AM 61.6dB 691dB BO.OdB 65.5dB 56.0dB
7:29:35 AM 67.4dB 77 1 dB 89.4dB 70.6dB 61 4dB
7:30:35 AM 66.8dB 73.3dB 83.9dB 69.4dB 630dB
7:31:35 AM 63.2dB 70.7dB B2.6dB 65.9dB 59.0dB
7:32:35 AM 67.2dB 74.4dB 87.1dB 70.3dB 61.5dB
7:33:35 AM 65.4dB 69 6dB 80.9dB 67.9dB 61.4dB
7:34:35 AM 64,OdB 687dB 79.7dB 66.7dB 58.9dB
7:35:35 AM 64.7dB nOdB 82.7dB 68.6dB 59.7dB
7:36:35 AM 67.5dB 75 OdB 85.1dB 69.6dB 623dB
7:37:35 AM 56.2dB 72.4dB 84.2dB 69 8dB 60.3dB
7:38:35 AM 65.3dB 73.6dB 84.6dB 68.6dB 58 4dB
7:39:35 AM 677dB 754dB 86.8dB 70.9dB 62 OdB
7:40:35 AM 52.6dB 67.2dB 79.3dB 65.adB 57.8dB
7:41 :35 AM 67.1dB 73.4dB 85.1dB 69.0dB 63.2dB
7 :42:35 AM 66.5dB 73.7dB 84.3dB 59.0dB 509dB
7:43:35 AM 63.9dB 69 4dB 80.6dB 67.3dB 57.7dB
7:44:35 AM 67.0dB 77.0dB 90.2dB 59.6dB 62.3dB
7:45:35 AM 59.0dB 73 4dB 8S.1dB 71.6dB 63,1dB
7
Agenda Item No. 68
Study 1 April 27, 2010
Logging (1 Minute) LEQ LMAX LPeak LN10 LN90 Page 8 ~M.6
4:07:13 PM 65.4dB 74.6dB 83.3dB 68 3dB 60.BdB
4:08:13 PM 66.9dB 73.3dB 85.7dB 70AdS 59.5dB
4:09:13 PM 66.7dB 79.0dB 89.5dB 690dB 61.6dS
410:13 PM 54.7dB 754dB B6.3dB 67 4dB 562dB
4:11:13 PM 63.adS 70.1 dB 82.0dB 67.0dB 58.7dB
4:12:13 PM 56.0dS 73 5dB B5.9dB 68.5dB 59.3dB
4:13:13 PM 6B.9dB 78.2dB 92.1dB 74.0dB 60.3dB
4:14:13 PM 54.7dS 71.1dB 83.0dB 66.9dB 60.6dS
4:15:13 PM 63.7dB 68.9dB 81.1dB 66AdB 578dB
4:16:13 PM 66.5dB 71.6dB 52.6dB 69.1dB 59.8dB
4:17:13 PM 70.4dB 82.5dB 98.7dB 74.3dB 59.6dB
4:18:13 PM 65.3dB 74.6dB B4.4dB 5aAdB 59 5dB
4:19:13 PM 54.adB 71.6dB a1.8dB 67.0dS 61.3dB
4.20:13 PM 64.4dB 68.8dB 80.5dB 66.8dB 60 3dB
4:21:13 PM 63.2dB 69 3dB BO.5dB 670dB 566dB
4:22:13 PM 56.3dB 71.7dB 82.4dB 68.4dB 63.9dB
4:2313 PM 56.0dB 71.5dB 84.4dB 68.3dB 63.DdB
4:24:13 PM 55.0dB 71.6dB 83.4dB 67.8dB 55.8dB
4:25:13 PM 63.7dB 691dB 82.2dB 56.6dB 58.6dB
4:26:13 PM 54.9dB 69.4dB 81.1dB 67.2dB 60.7dB
427:13 PM 69.0dB 82 9dB 95.1dB 71.5dB 61 1dB
4:28:13 PM 54.3dB 69 9dB 81.6dB 65.3dB 57 5dB
429:13 PM 54.idB 71 5dB B1.7dS 57.adB 58.7dB
4:30:13 PM 65.7dB 71 OdS 52.0dB 68.0dB 6D.5dB
4:31:13 PM 65.2dB 77.4dB B6.9dB 68 3dB 57 4dB
432:13 PM 54.5dS 69 6dB 82.idB 67 8dB 574dB
4:33:13 PM 65.9dB 74.2dB 83.2dB 68.9dB 59.adS
4:34:13 PM 53.3dS 67.3dS 81.5dB 65.8dS 56.4dS
4:35:13 PM 66.adB 76.4dB 89.1 dB 70.6dB 60AdB
4:36:13 PM 65~8dB 72 3dB 82.2dB 67.9dB 61 1dB
4:37:13 PM 67.adB 78.5dB 92.9dB 70.1dS 61.6dS
4:38:13 PM 64.4dB 70.9dB 81.2dB 667dB 59.7dS
4:39:13 PM 62.adS 67 5dB 79.6dB 66.0dS 57 OdS
4:40:13 PM 65.4dB 68.1dB 80.3dB 67 1 dB 60 OdB
4:4113 PM 62.3dB 75.3dB 83.6dB 63.9dB 56 3dB
4:42:13 PM 64.4dB 68.0dB 81.0dS 66.5dB 60 DdB
4:43:13 PM 65.2dB 75.0dS 84.2dB 69.7dB 58 3dS
444:13 PM 67.4dS 77.1dB 85.2dB 71.adS 59.8dS
4'45:13 PM 66.8dS 77 8dB 87.3dB 70 4dB 61.2dS
4:46:13 PM 65.3dB 70.6dB 82.2dB 68.5dB 60 1 dB
4:47:13 PM 63.3dS 683dS 79.6dS 65.1dB 60 OdS
4:48:13 PM 63.0dB 70 1 dB 80.8dB 662dB 56.4dB
4:49:13 PM 68.2dB 79 2dB 89.7dB 70.8dB 60 OdB
4'50:13 PM 64.4dB 69.0dS 81.3dS 67.3dB 59 7dB
451: 13 PM 65.3dB 72 2dB B3.3dS 68.8dB 59.8dS
4:52:13 PM 64.3dB 74.6dB 87.7dB 68.0dB 57.5dS
4:53:13 PM 65.1dB 70 adB 82.2dB 68 8dS 58.5dS
. 4:54:13 PM 64.4dS 70.1 dB 83.9dB 674dB 58 4dB
4:55:13 PM 65.1dB 72.3dB B3.0dS 67 8dS 59 9dS
. 4:56:13 PM 65.4dB 72 4dB 83.4dB 67 8dB 59.5dB
4:57:13 PM 63.5dB 69.1 dB 81.7dS 66 3dB 573dB
4:58:13 PM 65.2dS 69.0dB 81.5dB 68.1dB 59.3dB
4:59:13 PM 55.8dS 70.8dS 81.7dS 6a.2dB 62 OdS
.5:00:13 PM 63.6dB 69.2dS aO.3dS 66.7dS 58 1dB
5:01:13 PM 64.6dB 58.6dB 81.7dB 67.3dS 59.1 dB
5:02:13 PM 63.8dS 71.8dS 82.5dB 56.3dS 57 9dB
5:03:13 PM 66.6dS 77 6dB a5.OdS 69 4dS 62.9dB
5:04:13 PM 68.0dB 78.1dB 87.3dB 70.7dB 61 5dB
5:05:13 PM 64AdB 70 4dB 85.4dB 55.9dB 62 4dB
5:06:13 PM 65.9dB 72.9dB 85.1dB 67.9dB 614dS
507:13 PM 65.4dB 72.9dB B3AdB 68.9dS 60 5dB
5:08:13 PM 72. OdS 86.3dB 98.9dS 72.7dB 60 5dS
5:09:13 PM 71.1dS 805dB 88.9dB 74.8dB 62.3dS
5:10:13 PM 81 9dB 101 6dB 1129dB 69.7dB 62.5dB
2
,.,.___.~=~"..~,.~.",_",.~".,~"",,,,~------=__~'__'_"~~_"~_.._..._.__.,._.u_~,__,<,,''-'~~''_'._'__''''' '0 _~~._
Agenda Item No. 68
April 27, 2010
Page 9 of 46
Section 1.0
INTRODUCTION
Collier County is currently preparing design plans for the extension of Santa Barbara Boulevard
from Rattlesnake Hammock Road to Davis Boulevard (Figure 1-1). Santa Barbara Boulevard
currently terminates at its' intersection with Davis Boulevard. The proposed improvements
plan to construct a six-lane divided arterial roadway from Rattlesnake Hammock Road to Davis
Boulevard.
The objectives of this Noise Study Report (NSR) are:
.1 · To identify noise sensitive sites adjacent to the project corridor,
.
.
Additional objectives include the evaluation of construction noise impacts and the identification
of noise "contours" adjacent to the corridor.
Santa Barbara Boulevard Extension
Final Noise Study Report
Agenda Item No. 68
April 27, 2010
Page 10 of 46
· The barrier must provide at least a 5 dBA reduction in traffic noise with a design goal of 10
dBA or more desired.
· The barrier should not cost more than $37,800 per benefited receiver (a benefited receiver
is a site that receives at least a 5 dBA reduction in noise from the barrier) unless a higher
level of expenditure can be justified by other circumstances. The current estimated cost
used by Collier County to construct a noise barrier (materials and labor) is $27.00 per
square foot (ft2).
Other factors considered when evaluating noise barriers as a potential noise abatement
measure address both the feasibility of the barriers (given site-specific details,cfll'lai:)arrie:tf
a9~uaIIY.t:>e:tconstructed) and the reasonableness of the barriers. . . .
Other feasibility factors that relate to noise barriers include driver/pedestrian sight distance
(safety), ingress and egress requirements to and from affected properties, ROW requirements
including access rights and easements for construction and/or maintenance, impacts on
existing/planned utilities, and drainage.
Other. reasonableness factors .incJlJd~
· The relationship of the predicted future noise levels to the NAC (do the predicted levels
approach, meet, or far surpass the NAG);
.
Land use . stability . (are the noise-sensitivelahd uses likely to remain for.an indefinite period
of time);
Antiquity (the amount .. of development that has occurred before and after the initial .
constructionofa roadway);
e.
· The desires of the. affected property o.wners to haves noise barrier adjacent to their
property; and
. Aesthetics.
4.4.1 NOISE BARRIER ANAL YSIS
As previously stated, during the year 2030 with the proposed extension of Santa Barbara
Boulevard, traffic noise levels are predicted to approach, meet, or exceed the NAC or increase
substantially, or both, at a total of 126 noise sensitive sites (123 residences, 1 pool, tennis
courts, and a playground).
The following discusses the feasibility and reasonableness of providing noise barriers as an
abatement measure for the affected sites. Documentation in support of the noise barrier
analysis is provided in Appendix C.
15
Santa Barbara Boulevard Extension
Rnal Noise Study Report
j
~
Agenda Item No. 68
April 27, 2010
Page 11 of 46
APPENDIX A
NOISE STUDY SITES
SITE
SlTE
S...'U
GllC.DtN OAlE ^_
JO..t.n
~ "'fl
)(,..9.2$
,,-~, .:.
BRIl\RWOOD
51 n:
SITE
PROJECT: L IV/NGSTON RD NOISE STUDY
COUNTY: COLLIER
soc: 1 ll1P'49SRCtlZ5E
11 -96
DATE:
REV:
FILENO.:
SHEET 1
NA
OF
....1
..
~()29-OOJ -00
TSHNS
DRAWN: JWM
-I
NTS
06'10'2'
I \
LDCA nON M.
-
'.r-
I c.)'-(
": .{;:: 'i ~~!.\
Agenda Item No. 68
_,~:-"'-April '8, 2010
! ..., Rai;je 1 ~ Qf: 4~~,,~:
Robert H. Tanner M.Sc.. LL.D.. F'ASA, "'.E.
March 6, 1998
POST OFFICE BOX 655
NAPLES, FLORIDA ~'0655
PHONE 941-261 -5940
NIfflL ~1b":t> ~ 'l~ ~ 53
ARCHITECTURAL ACOUSTICS
NOISE CONTROL
NOISE REPORT #2
Livingston Road (Jet. Radio Road (CR856) to Jet. Pine Ridge Road (CR896))
CC PROJECT No. 60061
1. INTRODUCTION
This report deals wi th measurements of ambient noise made in connection vi th.
the proposed construction of Livingston Road from Radio Road (CR856) to Pine
Ridge Road (CRB96).
2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
At present, only short sections of Livingston Road are complete, on a two-lane
basis, between Golden Gate Parkway and Pine R.idge Road I providing acc.ess to
the 'Wyndemere development. Noise Report #1, dated November I, 1996, made
forecasts of the distances of the 65 dB{A) noise confour from the edge of the
nearest lane for the two sections north and south of Golden Gate Parkway for
various predicted traffic volumes.
In addition to setting a noise level limit of 67 dB(A) for Activity Category B
land use (which includes residential properties), the g.uidelines of the
Federal Highway Administration (FBWA) ~~'f~''''a'C'ccJwjt".tbe-i''ft'C:t''i!!l!'se-in "'\f'jri~
:l&v..J W1.$..c.h.,..,""the~~~"1'~l,-'t'~eGue__afm~pa~i>t'lr-<,tth~jJflft"~n t
_k-e""~",,:W_." t~. For this reason, it was dec.ided
to make such measurements on the tvo sections.
3. MEASUREMENTS
Ambient noise level measurements vere taken on ~~ at two sites,
using a Larson-Davis Model 700 Integrating Sound Level Meter, which recorded
the A-weighted L10 value, the sound level which was not exceeded more than 10%
of the measurement period, as laid down in FHYA-DP-45-1R. One site was on the
Yyndemere section, opposi te to the construction entrance to the Grey Oaks
Oevelopment, wi th the meter located 15m (50 feet) from the edge of the
roadway. The other site was at the dead end of Exchange Avenue in the middle
of the proposed right of way.
As recommended in FHWA-DP-45-1R, readings were taken both in the morning and
afternoon at each location, over periods of from 30 to 40 minutes. The results
are given in Table I.
.....~._...-.. _....... ...... --.-.....-..
If':) UUL
./'
Agenda Item No. 68
April 27, 2010
Page 13 of 46
TABLE I
~
ft
Location
L10
p.m.
63.7
G~
Average
62.5
9'r~~
dB(A)
a.m.
~yndemere 61.3
Exchange Ave. -49.9--
During the periods of measurement there was a fair amount of traffic over the
Wyndemere section, with some trucks, both large and small, turning into the
construction si te. Estimated average speed of the non- turning traffic was
about 40 m.p.h. Since the construction traffic was considered to be non-
typi cal, further measurements were made at the Vyndemere si t e on bo th the
morning and afternoon of Saturday, March 7. However, these readings were
ac tually higher than those of March 5, and were therefore ignored. At the
Exc.hange Avenue site the nearest traffic was that turning from Exchange onto
Production Blvd. Just west of this intersection there is a big depot,
involving trucks backing up. Otber noise induded planes passing overhead.
Table III in the November 1, 1996, Report (see. Appendix A beloW') gave the
,d4lslt'mre'!s""~Vha'Cm:.1lJth'e'!l!'*~f'f;:i:~.nai!sl!~'i'~"t"1:mrl!.rt\l!(i~,~"tQ\i.rbell!t6'~'Hd~" for var i ous
",,"~PG$~~g.~.:i;~a,<elf,!de.t)s/i;~'t;'d~TJt..,._.~,t'~~.fi'"~1!~ea:$iDml~;~1!.,J;1~x,"'s!t~ibn~(tt~lr;e-qe1rs
'iii. ~Ehes e.dis..,t..aIl. ....o....e. S...'.i~... .;~Jii\~d8[1i.'-~')fio.Ir.;if2'it~~' '()9tfbeMif;S~iC)t'1'0'f1~lllD~B'fIIj!4~,m
'. . .~..~~'_....''"" ..... ..... . .... .... . '. '~\lfA.'~:t. C'~~'."'d": '.'r-. _ ....,.."..._. .. "~<1J'<F'.
~~~C!~\~,lii~t;~PQ~:'Cl;tfdtt'lt Applying these igures to the FEWA Noise Abatement
Criteria Chart for Activity Category B, indicates that, provided that these
distances can be maintained, no abatement cansiderations will be necessary for
the northern section. For the southern portion, the intersection on the chart
of the 52'.6 and 12.4 lines comes just within the Abatement Considerations
Required area. In order to avoid abatement, the increase over existing noise
would have to be reduced to 9.5 dB(A), which would be achieved by increasing
all the distances in Table III be a factor of 2.2. The installation of a wall
giving an attenuation of about 10 dB would seem to be a more practical
salution.
For the sake of convenience, Table III from the November 1, 1996, report is
reproduced on the next page with an explanatory note.
Robert H. Tanner, P.E.
- 2 -
.<0/98 15:08
'8'941 261 1612
Robert H. Tanner
Agenda Item No. 61lJ 003
April 27, 2010
Page 14 of 46
APPENDIX A
TABLE III
Free Flov S. of G.G. Parkvay
Year AADT A B PSllT A B
2000 24209 68.81 dB(A)36 ft 28481 69.52 dB(A)42 ft
2010 35544 70.48 53 41817 71.19 62
2020 44934 71.50 67 52864 72.20 79
Intersection S. of G.G. Parkway*
2000 24209 67.58 27 28481 68.29 32
2010 35544 69.25 40 41817 69.96 47
2020 44934 70.27 50 52864 70.97 59
Free Flow N. of G.G. Parkway
2000 21905 68.38 33 25771 69.08 38
2010 32642 70.11 49 38402 70.82 57
2020 38564 70.83 57 45359 71.54 68
Intersection N. of G.G. Parkway*
2000 21905 67.15 25 25771 67.85 29
2010 32642 6B.B8 37 38402 69,59 43
2020 38564 69.60 43 45359 70.31 51
* llithin 600' of Centerline of Intersecting Street (North or South) .
Note: "A" is the estimated noise level at 15' from edge of roadway.
liB" is the estimated distance at which the noise level will be 65 dB(A)
without abatement. or 55 dB(A) with a 10 dB abatement.
- 3 -
FINAL REPORT UPDATE
Agenda Item No. 68
April 27, 2010
Page 15 of 46
Figure 2a. Feasibility Flowchart
l~-
Method 1: Use
equation 5 If volumes
known
Method 2: Use Table
If volumes not known
Method 3: Use default
-1dB(A) for weekdays
or -2dB(A) for
weekends
./ ~
",,/wasslte.. .
q:eveIOpe(l after.....
. d81e..-:;::Y.Publi. 'c .
y
No
Y-
Va
/-1~the'~
r~~~'1
<,6~ v. .~.n;:~. -~_..
"15dB(A);ea~ ~ be obl/ilned~Nt>-fo barriers. END
'-........ /' ,y... ANALYSIS
"" .,/ .........
rl
No Yes
!. I
~ l /"
Noabatement. .// . -,,,,,,,
cons~~~~~~redJ. No (;~~:=;J>
--,-"-'." ........... /",/"
'r
V"a
I
Barried& f.easlble, i
proceed to Reasonablt!
Matrix I
13
FINAL REPORT UPDATE
Agenda Item No. 68
April 27, 2010
Page 16 of 46
Figure 1. Draft Reasonableness Matrix
· AIIll1ytla ROtes to preparer.
I. Place receptolS only at areas ofmquent bWIIBD use, for example a p8Jk bench or pavilion. This excludes areas such as the edge
of the property when DOt used. bar ditx:hes, etc.
2. Parking 10m are not to be COIIlIidmd valid reoeptors lotatioIls.
3. Complete the nlatrix to determine if the special land use is reasonable and feasible.
4. If Reasonableness Matrix score is negative, then abatement is not reasollBble and feasible. A positive lICOre indicates that the
project may be reasonable and feasible. The degree of the number indica1es the degree of strenath of the evaluation (i.e., a
positive 4 is considered I1IOI1l reasonable and feasible that a value of positive I). Any FATAL item results in an immediate exit
from the matrix and is not considered to be reasonable and/or feasible.
i 111 Ii' lIitvR
hi IFeaBibte M
S.......i8 se 8C easona t! am.
Item Criteria Yes No
I Can abatement provide 5 dB(A) protection for benefited 0 FATALl
receivers?
2 Is the NAC level approached or exceeded at site? +1 (goto #4) -1 (goto #3)
3 Is the dB(A) increase >10 dB(A)? +1 FATAL'
4 Do the owners want abatement? +1 FATAL'
5 Does the owner consider abatement to be of substantial +1 FATAL'
benefit?
6 Is the site a cemeterv? FATAL' 0
7 Does time of use correspond to peak traffic volumes? 0 see below-
8 ~Is barrier cost/receptor hour< $1000 +1 -1
9 dB( A) Increase < 5 dB( A) -1 0
10 dB( A) Increase 5- 10 dB( A) +1 0
11 dB( A) Increase> 1 0 dB( A) +1 0
12 dB(A) Increase> 15 dB(A) +1 0
I3 Is the site used daily? +2 0
14 Is the site used more than 2 days per week? +l -I
15 Is the site used weekends onlv? -I 0
16 Site Developed after date of public knowledge? -I 0
17 Is barrier cost<~ 1 0% of total proiect COst?4 0 -2
18 Does abatement detract from aesthetics? -1 +]
19 Will barrier aesthetics increase cost? -1 +1
20 Is the site NAC categorv A? +2 0
21 Is the site NAC cate~orv B? +1 0
22 Is the site NAC category C? -10 0
23 Is the site NAC category D? -12 0
24 Is the site NAC category E and indoor noise levels are of +2 0
extreme importance? (i.e., school church)
25 Is percentage. of impacted land that can be provided 5 +] -1
dB(A) of abatement >10 %?
26 Amount ofland exceeding NAC where activity exists > +] -]
1O%?
Site Score (sum aU answers unless FATAL item Doted)
IFatal"" Exit Matrix, abatement not reasonable and/or feasible,
lPerform aD.lysis with trallk volume corresponding to time of use for aU following questions.
3Calculated by dividing the amount of time for special facility use, on day of use, by abatement cost.
'7hls appUes to Type I projects only.
8
FINAL REPORT UPDATE
FlowchartlMatrix Items
Agenda Item No. 68
April 27, 2010
Page 17 of 46
The following discussion provides additional information for each of the Feasibility
Flowchart and Reasonableness Matrix items.
FEASmD..ITY FLOWCHART ITEMS
Feasibility Item #1
It is less reasonable to provide abatement for a site that was developed after public
knowledge of the roadway constnlction. The developers were aware of the increased
noise and chose to build at the site regardless.
Feasibility Item #2:
If the site is operated primarily during off peak traffic conditions it is not reasonable to
predict sound levels based on peak traffic conditions. There are three possible ways to
adjust for off peak traffic volumes and they depend on the amount of information known
by the preparer.
Method #1: Direct Calculation irOffPeak Volumes are known. The peak hour levels
can be adjusted by use of the following formula if the offpeak volumes are known:
N
Leq (offpeak hour) = Leq (peak hour) + 1010g-
No
where:
(5)
No = peak hour traffic volume
N = off peak traffic volume
22
OOOtO
to..-'<t
.0....0
ON
'7 -00
';..-
.(J)
":0)
Cl.Ctl
Ctl<(ll.
"C
c:
(J)
0)
<(
~
a
III
Cl:::~
>-..~
. -g Q)
-oq;
CIl_
Q)o
~.Q)
~l
Cii
i!
co
.9
13
o
-'
'"
.E
..
III
'"
"tJ '5
c:: :z
~iji
Q) -g
...J g
~
c:::
5 .l!l
~ ~
oS ~
'" co
co ..
'co Cf)
Sl '"
-2 V)-
a "5
::! :z
Be
g
.(;;
<:::
'"
Jj
1:>
~
~
o
/Xl
e
III
-e
<II
/Xl
<II
c:
<II
CIl
._........~_,.._,..,,__,,____,,_.____, .....-,..,....,.,."""w,,___.,,_.~~_~._,_~_.___,..,.~~..u..,,'.,,.__-~~._,~....-......"..._--".",................_-~~_.,---~~~..--~_.._...~."--
Agenda Item No. 68
April 27, 2010
Page 19 of 46
Lbn1 (dBA)
Existing Increase Approaches,
Site #of Leq Build From Meets, or Substantial
ID'" Units Land Use (dBA) (2030) Existin2 Exceeds NAC? Increase?
Recreational (Church
111 1 Plav()rounc;n 47.7 67.5 19.8 Yes Yes
112 1 MF Residential 47.7 71.1 23.4 Yes Yes
113 1 MF Residential 47.7 71.0 23.3 Yes Yes
114 1 MF Residential 47.7 71.0 23.3 Yes Yes
115 1 MF Residential 47.7 71.0 23.3 Yes Yes
116 1 MF Residential 47.7 68.0 20.3 Yes Yes
117 1 MF Residential 47.7 66.0 18.3 Yes Yes
118 1 MF Residential 47.7 64.1 16.4 Yes
119":," r MFResidential 47.7 62.7 15.0 ". Yes
120 1 MF Residential 47.T 65.5 17.8 Yes
121 1 MF Residential 47.7 63.9 16.2 . Yes
122. ..... t' MFResiderrtial . 47,], 62.7 15.0 iT T\ ..; Yes
123 ,- 1 MF Residential 47.7 61.5 13.8
124 1 MF Residential 47.7 61.7 14.0
125 1 MF Residential 47.7 60.4 12.7
126 1 MF Residential 47.7 59.7 12.0
127 1 MF Residential 47.7 59.0 11.3
128 1 MF Residential 47.7 57.3 9.6
129 1 MF Residential 47.7 55.1 7.4
130 1 MF Residential 47.7 53.8 6.1
131 1 MF Residential 47.7 54.4 6.7
132 1 SF Residential 47.7 60.7 13.0
133 1 SF Residential 47.7 64.3 16.6 Yes
134 1 SF Residential 47.7 69.4 21.7 Yes Yes
135 1 SF Residential 47.7 70.7 23.0 Yes Yes
136 1 SF Residential 47.7 70.3 22.6 Yes Yes
137 1 SF Residential 47.7 67.2 19.5 Yes Yes
138 1 SF Residential 47.7 64.4 16.7 Yes
139 1 SF Residential 47.7 62.2 14.5
140 1 SF Residential 47.7 60.1 12.4
141 1 SF Residential 47.7 59.0 11.3
142 1 SF Residential 47.7 65.5 17.8 Yes
143 1 SF Residential 47.7 58.7 11.0
144 1 SF Residential 47.7 66.0 18.3 Yes Yes
145 1 SF Residential 47.7 59.0 11.3
146 1 SF Residential 47.7 58.5 10.8
147. 1 SF Residential 47.7 60.7 13.0
148 1 SF Residential 47.7 56.4 8.7
149A 1 . MF Residential 47.7 51.7 4.0
149B 1 MF Residential 47.7 53.5 5.8
149C 1 MF Residential 47.7 56.0 8.3
150A 1 MF Residential 47.7 52.1 4.4
150B 1 MF Residential 47.7 54.0 6.3
150C 1 "MF Residential 47.7 56.6 8.9
151A 1 MF Residential 47.7 52.5 4.8
151B 1 MF Residential 47.7 54.5 6.8
151C 1 MF Residential 47.7 57.3 9.6
152A 1 MF Residential 47.7 52.9 5.2
152B 1 MF Residential 47.7 55.2 7.5
152C 1 MF Residential 47.7 58.1 10.4
153A 1 MF Residential 47.7 53.6 5.9
Table 3-3 (Continued)
Predicted Traffic Noise levels
Santa Barbara Boulevard Extension
Final Noise Study Report
10
,;.,....',~'.,.,.".~._,...-...,.__..~~.."...'~~.,.'.""",-_._-"""..--..--,",.''''"''~'''''''',._.".'.,"~....""""""~,,,._--~~-,,~,",,,---,..........--"' ..
,---""""-".,",...""~"-,,,,,,",,.._,,,,,),,, ..~.-"-<<""""""'_'-"'_--,--_~__,...........".,,,.-.-~,~,..,,,,~,,,,_.__,,,,,,,,,,w''''_.',
l
,
j
Agenda Item No. 68
April 27, 2010
Page 20 of 46
LA..nl (dBA) .
Existing Increase Approaches,
Site #or Leq Build From Meets, or Substantial
ID* Units Land Use (dBA) (2030) Existine Exceeds NAC? Increase?
1 1 SF Residential 47.7 64.3 16.6 Yes
2 1 SF Residential 47.7 63.6 15.9 Yes
3 1 SF Residential 47.7 63.0 15.3 Yes
4 1 SF Residential 47.7 61.9 14.2
5 1 SF Residential 47.7 61.8 14.1
6 1 SF Residential 47.7 60.4 12.7
7 1 SF Residential 47.7 60.1 12.4
8 1 SF Residential 47.7 59.3 11.6
9 1 .... RecreaUonallPeoO 47.7 66,7 19.0 ,. Yes . Yes
10 .1 RecreationaUTenl"lis Courts 47.7 63.6'. ....... ....15.9 :, Yes'
11.. ...1' '.. . SF Residential ..........47.7 .... 64.7 17.0'"," .:.. . .... .. Yes
...... 12 1 ........ SF ResidElhtial. .. . 47.7 66.0 .. '18.3' I..... Yes' ." Yes:. . ....
13 1 SF Residential 47.7 67.8 20.1 Yes Yes
14 1 SF Residential 47.7 68.9 21.2 Yes Yes
15 1 SF Residential 47.7 69.9 22.2 Yes Yes
16 1 SF Residential 47.7 69.4 21.7 Yes Yes
17 1 SF Residential 47.7 70.6 22.9 Yes Yes
18 1 SF Residential 47.7 70.4 22.7 Yes Yes
19 1 SF Residential 47.7 69.7 22.0 Yes Yes
20 1 SF Residential 47.7 69.8 22.1 Yes Yes
21 1 SF Residential 47.7 70.1 22.4 Yes Yes
22 1 SF Residential 47.7 71.4 23.7 Yes Yes
23 1 SF Residential 47.7 71.2 23.5 Yes Yes
24 1 SF Residential 47.7 71.9 24.2 Yes Yes
25 1 SF Residential 47.7 70.7 23.0 Yes Yes
26 1 SF Residential 47.7 69.9 22.2 Yes Yes
27 1 SF Residential 47.7 70.3 22.6 Yes Yes
28 1 SF Residential 47.7 69.7 22.0 Yes Yes
29 1 SF Residential 47.7 71.7 24.0 Yes Yes
30 1 SF Residential 47.7 70.7 23.0 Yes Yes
31 1 SF Residential 47.7 59.9 12.2
32 1 SF Residential 47.7 60.5 12.8
33 1 SF Residential 47.7 61.5 13.8
34 1 SF Residential 47.7 62.2 14.5
35 1 SF Residential 47.7 62.2 14.5
36 1 SF Residential 47.7 62.5 14.8
37 1 SF Residential 47.7 62.7 15.0 Yes
38 1 SF Residential' 47.7 62.4 14.7
39 1 SF Residential 47.7 62.3 14.6
40 1 SF Residential 47.7 62.3 14.6
41 1 SF Residential 47.7 62.5 14.8
42 1 SF Residential 47.7 62.1 14.4
43 1 SF Residential 47.7 62.4 14.7
44 1 SF Residential 47.7 63.3 15.6 Yes
45 1 SF Residential 47.7 64.2 16.5 Yes
46 1 SF Residential 47.7 65.6 17.9 Yes
47 1 SF Residential 47.7 65.4 17.7 Yes
48 1 SF Residential 47.7 64.0 16.3 Yes
49 1 SF Residential 47.7 63.4 15.7 Yes
50 1 SF Residential 47.7 63.4 15.7 Yes
51 1 SF Residential 47.7 63.4 15.7 Yes
52 1 SF Residential 47.7 63.5 15.8 Yes
Table 3-3
Predicted Traffic Noise Levels
7
Santa Barbara Boulevard Extension
Anal Noise Study Report
Agenda Item No. 68
April 27, 2010
Page 21 of 46
LAGnt (dBA)
Existing Increase Approaches,
Site # of Leq Build From Meets, or Substantial
ID* Units Land Use (dBA) (2030) Existinl! Exceeds NAC? Increase?
53 1 SF Residential 47.7 63.6 15.9 Yes
54 1 SF Residential 47.7 64.1 16.4 Yes
55 1 SF Residential 47.7 64.3 16.6 Yes
56 1 SF Residential 47.7 64.5 16.8 Yes
57 1 SF Residential 47.7 64.7 17.0 Yes
58 1 SF Residential 47.7 64.8 17.1 Yes
59 1 SF Residential 47.7 64.7 17.0 Yes
60 1 SF Residential 47.7 60.9 13,2
61 1 SF Residential 47.7 58.9 11.2
62 1 SF Residential 47.7 57.5 9.8
63 1 SF Residential 47.7 59.2 11.5
64 1 SF Residential 47.7 58.2 10.5
65A 1 MF Residential 47.7 54.0 6.3
65B 1 MF Residential 47.7 57.8 10.1
66A 1 MF Residential 47.7 54.2 6,5
66B 1 MF Residential 47.7 58.1 10.4
67A 1 MF Residential 47.7 54.7 7.0
67B 1 MF Residential 47.7 58.6 10,9
68A 1 MF Residential 47.7 55.2 7,5
68B 1 MF Residential 47.7 59.1 11.4
69A 1 MF Residential 47.7 56.2 8.5
69B 1 MF Residential 47.7 60.1 12.4
70A 1 MF Residential 47,7 53.0 5.3
70B 1 MF Residential 47,7 56.8 9.1
71A 1 MF Residential 47.7 53.4 5.7
71B 1 MF Residential 47.7 57.2 9.5
72A 1 MF Residential 47.7 54.2 6.5
72B 1 MF Residential 47.7 57.9 10.2
73A 1 MF Residential 47.7 54.9 7.2
73B 1 MF Residential 47.7 58.5 10.8
74A 1 MF Residential 47.7 57.7 10.0
74B 1 MF Residential 47.7 61.2 13.5
75A 1 MF Residential 47.7 68.7 21.0 Yes Yes
75B 1 MF Residential 47.7 70.3 22.6 Yes Yes
76A 1 MF Residential 47.7 68,6 20.9 Yes Yes
76B 1 MF Residential 47.7 70.2 22.5 Yes Yes
77A 1 MF Residential 47.7 68.9 21.2 Yes Yes
77B 1 MF Residential 47.7 70.4 22.7 Yes Yes
78A 1 MF Residential 47.7 69.8 22.1 Yes Yes
78B 1 MF Residential 47.7 71.1 23.4 Yes Yes
79A 1 MF Residential 47.7 69.4 21.7 Yes Yes
79B 1 MF Residential 47.7 70.8 23.1 Yes Yes
80A 1 MF Residential 47.7 67.8 20.1 Yes Yes
80B 1 MF Residential 47.7 69.5 21,8 Yes Yes
81A 1 MF Residential 47.7 66.7 19.0. Yes Yes
81B 1 MF Residential 47.7 68.6 20.9 Yes Yes
82A 1 MF Residential 47.7 65,4 17,7 Yes
828 1 MF Residential 47.7 67.6 19,9 Yes Yes
83A 1 MF Residential 47.7 64.5 16.8 Yes
83B 1 MF Residential 47.7 67.1 19.4 Yes Yes
84A 1 MF Residential 47.7 69.9 22.2 Yes Yes
848 1 MF Residential 47.7 71.3 23.6 Yes Yes
Table 3-3 (Continued)
Predicted Traffic Noise Levels
Santa IJarbara Boulevard Extension
Rnal Noise Study Report
8
_~>-",-",",>"~""",'*",,,,,,~,,,,,,,,,,"'_"":"'~','~""""""'''';...,".:....-,"'_~"""''';,..,~",."..,.~.._''''...,,.''''',..-.-.'._._''',,~,.~.:..:..!".__,__..~_.:__~___.~__~_~,."_."'''''_...~......;,.__'_'.MM"""_'_'___'_~"";_'M.""""~'_"___'
Agenda Item No. 68
April 27, 2010
Page 22 of 46
LAeo1 (dBA)
Existing Increase Approaches,
Site #of Leq Build From Meets, or Substantial
IDol: Units Land Use (dBA) . (2030) Existina Exceeds NAC? Increase?
85A 1 MF Residential 47.7 69.9 22.2 Yes Yes
858 1 MF Residential 47.7 71.3 23.6 Yes Yes
86A 1 MF Residential 47.7 69.9 22.2 Yes Yes
8BB 1 MF Residential 47.7 71.4 23.7 Yes Yes
87A 1 MF Residential 47.7 69.9 22.2 Yes Yes
878 1 MF Residential 47.7 71.3 23.6 Yes Yes
88A 1 MF Residential 47.7 69.9 22.2 Yes Yes
88B 1 MF Residential 47.7 71.3 23.6 Yes Yes
89A 1 MF Residential 47.7 69.9 22.2 Yes Yes
89B 1 MF Residential 47.7 71.3 23.6 Yes Yes
90A 1 MF Residential 47.7 69.8 22.1 Yes Yes
90B 1 MF Residential 47.7 71.2 23.5 Yes Yes
91A 1 MF Residential 47.7 69.8 22.1 Yes Yes
918 1 MF Residential 47.7 71.2 23.5 Yes Yes
92A 1 MF Residential 47.7 70.1 22.4 Yes Yes
928 1 MF Residential 47.7 71.2 23.5 Yes Yes
93A 1 MF Residential 47.7 70.1 22.4 Yes Yes
93B 1 MF Residential 47.7 71.2 23.5 Yes Yes
94A 1 MF Residential 47.7 69.7 22.0 Yes Yes
94B 1 MF Residential 47.7 70.9 23.2 Yes Yes
95A 1 MF Residential 47.7 68.5 20.8 Yes Yes
958 1 MF Residential 47.7 70.0 22.3 Yes Yes
96A 1 MF Residential 47.7 68.1 20.4 Yes Yes
96B 1 MF Residential 47.7 69.7 22.0 Yes Yes
97A 1 MF Residential 47.7 67.7 20.0 Yes Yes
978 1 MF Residential 47.7 69.4 21.7 Yes Yes
98A 1 MF Residential 47.7 68.1 20.4 Yes Yes
988 1 MF Residential 47.7 69.8 22.1 Yes Yes
99A 1 MF Residential 47.7 66.5 18.8 Yes Yes
99B 1 MF Residential 47.7 68.4 20.7 Yes Yes
100A 1 MF Residential 47.7 65.4 17.7 Yes
1008 1 MF Residential 47.7 67.4 19.7 Yes Yes
101A 1 MF Residential 47.7 64.8 17.1 Yes
101B 1 MF Residential 47.7 67.0 19.3 Yes Yes
102A 1 MF Residential 47.7 64.3 16.6 Yes
1028 1 MF Residential .47.7 66.6 18.9 Yes Yes
103A 1 MF Residential 47.7 64.0 16.3 Yes
103B 1 MF Residential 47.7 66.3 18.6 Yes Yes
104A 1 MF Residential 47.7 63.0 15.3 Yes
104B 1 MF Residential '47.7 65.5 17.8 Yes
105A 1 MF Residential 47.7 61.5 13.8
105B 1 MF Residential 47.7 64.5 16.8 Yes
10BA 1 MF Residential 47.7 60.6 12.9
1068 1 MF Residential 47.7 64.0 16.3 Yes
107A 1 MF Residential 47.7 59.8 12.1
1078 1 MF Residential 47.7 63.4 15.7 Yes
108A 1 MF Residential 47.7 59.3 11.6
1088 , MF Residential 47.7 63.1 15.4 Yes
109A , MF Residential 47.7 54.2 6.5
1098 1 MF Residential 47.7 57.4 9.7
110A 1 MF Residential 47.7 53.2 5.5
110B 1 MF Residential 47.7 56.4 8.7
Table 3-3 (Continued)
Predicted Traffic Noise Levels
9
Santa Barbara Boulevard Extension
Final Noise Study Report
cooco
co..--.:t
.0_
ON 0
Z ,..: C")
ENN
2'2: ~
- c.C\:l
C\:l<(c..
'0
c:
Q)
:f
as
~'tii
NQ
G) ()
1i=
~E
I-
"Cl-
~-aIOLO
=-e-.:t-.:t
t'I) '-"
-
:=
=
....
~
Z
E-4
~
co ~
~ 3 g
-~-
c:.... ~
.......>
~
fIl
~
~
~~CX)
S
~
~
~~.-
:=
..I:l
~~~
.
E-~(')
~-.:t(,)
fIll'-(')
""C7)(')
C:ov
uC")C\!
cnN
OC\!
C\lLO
C")N
= ..'ll:
.s: ~ as
.... as Q)
~ 0) 0..
ec....!-
Q 0
-
=
~
.S
~
CI.l
~
~
"0
c:
~
=
..'ll:"E
otU
o >
E~
E :::J
as 0
::cCO
U)
Q).-
..'ll:fU
~Cl
fJl 0
0)-
E-c
astU
0:0
a:
~
~
"0
ell
~
as
tu~
-e...
as as
co>
Q)
as-
_:::J
c: 0
\'a CO
CJ)
LO
-.:t
~I
I;:"!;:
.~ a
lii~
;fl-s-
~~
~ ll.I
~.~
~<:
I\i
~.~
~Ll::
~
.a
~
Vi
o
o
C')
LO
(')8
LON
.,;
....
~
C') (') g
.- .....-
10
C')
on
~
=s
.u ~
LO~8
(')<N
"'0::=
C ...
~~
ll) '-'
;>--
:'=If''I
(')00-
IO~~
co"';jU
""]3
E= <1)
>.~
J:J ~
"0 >
-.:r~<
~ 8.~
,... <1) 0
~~
;>.-g
-g 0
..'ll:V5~
co()~
Q) ,_ U
c..t::::o
. =s E
- ... E
oE-<~
;bO::
'm]
.....8~
~g]
a:: 'm ti
() ~ ~
$><1
1Jlt::
0)"00
~~c..
Q) ;>- ll)
> ll) ~
<"3>.
~0"O
=~.3
o c;U CIl
0.. ;; ~
J:J .-
;; 0
Q:lZ
~"";i ~ 00
-=.5 g ~
cd ~ ... (.)
CIl .. E-< 2
i!.i8s:E-o
~ :i.:3 ~
5 ~ "3 i'5
CIl*:::So::
* * = ..0
l""'l
C')
10
co
..-
V
10
I'-
..-
..'ll:
co
0)
0..
Q)..'ll:
..'ll: 0"
co 0"
~E-c
~E~
1;iasa:
a:J:
coo co
co"....<::t
.0....
0"10
Z .....- ~
f
<D
~C)
a.ro
ro~o..
"0
c:
<D
C)
~
^
~
s~
.~ 00
~8
.0
rJ'1~
>v
"'0"
~~
~z
CI1~
~
.,...
J.C) 0
II 1.0
"C 0
Q) .....
Q) .,...
0- .q-
en II
.
C> Q)
> (.)
<( cu
E a..
Q)
:::J -
E .-
:2
'x c:
ca Q)
:2 ....
en
Q)
.....
:::J
0 c:
.-
II E
"C 0 LO
(]) ro .,.... .q-
(]) ~ CO . .
-
0- Il co E
(J) "0 II ::J
. Q)
C> Q) Z
> CD E 0 "C
<( 0- CD
(J) i= .... Q)
E (1) "'C (J) 0-
:::J C> Q) CJ CfJ
E cu (/') Z
J... 0- Il:
.- (]) -
c: cu > ....J
.- > -
:2 <( W ....J 0
o
co
o
f'..
o
CO
o
LO
o
~
paads
o
C')
o
C\I
o
.,....
c:
o
:2
LO
.,....
c:
:::J
en
~
.,....
-
ctS
en
C')
.,....
CD
E
i-
'i:;
LL
C\J
.,....
:::J
.c
....
.,...
.,...
o
"0
Q)
S
o
""'0
.,...
o
C\J
.c
CD
u..
lJ)OtO
to.....-.:t
.0_
ON 0
Zr---LO
ENN
$1:: ~
- o.ctI
ctI<(c..
"C
c:
(])
OJ
<(
^
~
8~
.~ 0
~8
.~
r,/j,....,(
> ~
~~
Uz
~
ti:
--
en
Q)
.....
:J
c:
a a E
C\I
II II a U')
~
en en -r-
Q) Q) <0 :t::
U U co E
..c II .
Q) ..c -'
> Q) Q) Z "0
:#; > E 0 Q)
:#; r- r- Q)
E Q) "0 C/) 0-
:J O>Q) (!J C/)
E ctS en Z
~ 0- - c::
c: Q) ctS > -'
~ > - - ()
<( w -'
C\J U') a
.q U') U')
II .q 0
en -r- .....
Q) -r- -r-
U II ~
..c en II
Q) Q) Q)
> ,2 u
:#; ..c ctS
E Q) a..
> Q)
:J -
E :#; .-
:E
'x ctS c:
ctS .....
0 Q)
:E r- r-
"0
Q)
I 3:
! a
-r-a
-r-
a
C\L
a a 0
C\I -r- ~
u..
~-::-~'''~;,''~'
-"""""":''''::~,;,;l!,~~
."....,-~.......",._,
-"'''''''''''''_^''_'--';' "'"4"'''
'.;~
^..:~~);;..;;; '---
7'-;';'
a
<0
a
U')
a 0
..q- M
SJB8
c:
o
:E
U')
-r-
c:
:J
C/)
~
-r-
.....
ctS
C/)
C')
-r-
Q)
E
r-
'C
u..
C\I
-r-
:J
..c
r-
-r-
-r-
-..........
_In_r~~.&i
""->- V~e>
Y<aI01:I 'S31dVN NOIJJCICJV AJ.l"I:)V::I NOt1IBUSIa
.011 '3elVt:l3^38 lV lSVO~
r:=;] ~]f .J ili niil ~
~Ulf : hail!:]
i'
I
.i
I
i;
I,
,,;
~;
,,'
r.r
,r
J~
j~
(;
"
\'.
~ .,
,~,.-.-.
LQ, .
..t
i~!
IF
'?~
t;
l
.;."->~ .........,..... ~"-";' .._--
...
.J
..
X
ffi
...
III
I.
01
'"
U
j.
..;
.,
..
l.V>
'fa
.~
'~I
III
~,)".
@
,
"
i
t .
l~
--
-.--
J.
, i
r "~f-':
: !s i
I ~~ I
! Si,.J
r (;-.'
\ !
~~ ."\
us
::>
ffi
~
e
g
'"
0.
I' .
'. \
.-:., .-J.\.----------J.~-
~-- ~~
{ ~ ~
. ......
'M'lII~
v'
..J
..J
<f
~
us
ll!
:,:
..
<f
.......J
http://68.142,200.12/us.f358.mai1.yahoo.com/yalsecmedownload?mid= 1 %5f35123 3 7%5f... 3/18/2010
Page 1 ofl
Agenda Item No. 68
April 27, 2010
Page 27 of 46
http://68.142.200.12/us.f358.mail.yahoo,comlyalsecuredownload?mid= 1 %5f3 5 1 2814%5f... 3/18/2010
Page 1 of 1
Agenda Item No. 68
April 27, 2010
Page 28 of 46
http://68.142.200.12/us.f358.mail.yahoo.com/yalsecuredownload?mid= 1 %5f35123 37%5f... 3/18/2010
Page 1 of 1
Agenda Item No. 68
April 27, 2010
Page 29 of 46
fv11t-JlfYlUM
~'l
HiJvvI eg
C\ -ft-f--c::-n::-b
http://maps.collierappraiser.comloutputlCollier_2009_sde023 7761 0809764.jpg
4/5/2010
.. --,....""~._~".-:....--..~.."~._._~--."...,..._----..~."..".
"_~_'""'"'~_~~__'''_'~'''''''^''~'___~''_",.""~~~.._.-,;""":""_"",,,,,._,,,""~.__.,.,........."..,."-:"."~"...H._._....,.......",......_--...,_..^.__....___u__~.__.~.~~
Page 1 of 1
Agenda Item No. 68
April 27, 2010
Page 30 of 46
http://maps.collierappraiser .com/output/Collier _ 2009 _ sde0266046969642.jpg
4/5/2010
~~
~ii
Sl~~
.~
Pagelof.1
Agenda Item No. 68
April 27, 2010
Page 31 of 46
- q \? !~
"tP~\
. V~
~~~
/..~ O'
'l0 .
http://maps.collierappraiser.com/output/Collier _ 2009 _sde0266046969680.jpg
4/5/2010
.....';;;.:_.~;.......-."........>N"___.._._
,...
I
to
~
:J
C)
u::
"'0
....
co
>
Q)
:J
o
CO
(J)
">
CO
Q
o
.-
"'0
CO
o
~
.::t:.
U
o
E
E
CO
:c
Q)
.::t:.
CO
c::
(J)
Q)
:;:;
.-
CO
~
~
::s
.s
c:
o
(,)
Q)
tn
"0
Z
Page 1 of 1
Agenda Item No. 68
April 27, 2010
Page 33 of 46
http://68.142.200.12/us.f358.mail.yahoo.com/ya/securedownload?mid=1 %5f3512952%5f... 4/11/2010
Page 1 of 1
Agenda Item No. 68
April 27, 2010
Page 34 of 46
http://68.142.200.12/us.D58.mail.yahoo.comlyalsecuredownload?mid=1 %5D512475%5f... 4/11/2010
Page 1 of 1
Agenda Item No. 68
April 27, 2010
Page 35 of 46
http://maps.collierappraiser.comloutputlCollier _2010 _sde0259723 52833 54.jpg
4/11/2010
Page 1 of 1
Agenda Item No. 68
April 27, 2010
Page 36 of 46
http://maps.collierappraiser.comloutputlCollier_201 0_ sde02568844323 338.jpg
4/11/2010
Page 10ft
Agenda Item No. 68
April 27, 2010
Page 37 of 46
http://maps.collierappraiser.comloutput/Collier _ 20 t 0_ sde02625649483692.jpg
4/11/2010
Page 1 of 1
Agenda Item No. 68
April 27, 2010
Page 38 of 46
0~".cOhq'COut~1~'
\
lP~
l'
http://maps.collierappraiser,com/output/Collier _ 2001_ sde0264 7255123 558.jpg
4/11/2010
Page.lof!
Agenda Item No. 68
April 27, 2010
Page 39 of 46
rv
60
IV
http://maps.collierappraiser.com/outputlCollier_2002_sde02647255 123 576.jpg
4/11/2010
Page 1 of 1
Agenda Item No. 68
April 27,2010
Page 40 of 46
http://68.142.200.12/us.1358.mail.yahoo.comlya/securedownload?mid= 1 %513510121 %5f... 4/1112010
Page 1 of 1
Agenda Item No. 68
April 27, 2010
Page 41 of 46
http://68.142.200.12/us.f358.mail.yahoo.comlyalsecW'edownload?fid=Inbox&mid=1_3508... 4/11/201 0
Page 10ft
Agenda Item No. 68
April 27, 2010
Page 42 of 46
http://68.142.200.12/us.f358.mail.yahoo.comlya/securedownload?mid=I %Sf350522S%5f... 4/11/2010
Page 1 of 1
Agenda Item No. 68
April 27, 2010
Page 43 of 46
http://68.142.200.12/us.f3 58.mail.yahoo.comlyalsecuredownload?fid=Inbox&mid= 1_3 506... 4/11/2010
Ctl
"0
c:
Cl>
:f
<"._-,_..-.-~",,,,-,--,,,,,,,'--'~~".""---~""'"''---'--''''''',~""",_-'-~~~-~~~_.~~"'--,.....,._.._-
Agenda Item No. 68
April 27, 2010
Page 46 of 46
EXECUTIVES~Y
Recommendation to award Bid #09-5228 "CR 951 South of Jolley Bridge Landscape
and Irrigation Installationn to Vila & Son Landscaping Corp. in the amount of
$441,019.93 (Fund 112, Project #60086).
OBJECTIVE: Award Bid #09-5228 "CR 951 South of Jolley Bridge Landscape and
Irrigation Installation" to Vila & Son Landscaping Corp.
CONSIDERATIONS: On March 20, 2009, the Purchasing Department posted the "CR
951 South of Jolley Bridge Landscape and Irrigation Installation." Five hundred twelve
(512) notices were sent to vendors and one hundred six (106) vendors downloaded the
bid information. On April 2, 2009 a mandatory pre-bid was held. On April 23, 2009,
three (3) bids were received and opened. Since the project is federally funded, local
vendor preference is not applicable. Staff reviewed the unit pricing and recommends
awarding the Bid #09-5228 to the apparent, lowest, qualified bidder, Vila & Son
Landscaping Corp. in the amount of$441,019.93, which includes: base bid in the amount
of $28,637.80, Alt. #1 Top Soil in the amount of $40,881.23, Alt. #2 Concrete pavers in
the amount of $9,600.00, Alt. #3 Median Numbering in the amount of $40.00, Alt. #4
Plant Material in the amount of $139,750.61, Alt. #5 Irrigation Material in the amount of
$212,810.29, Alt. #7 Electric Services in the amount of $6,800.00 and Alt. #8 Re-Use
Water Meters in the amount of $2,500.00.
FISCAL IMPACT: Budget is available within Landscaping Fund (112) project #60086.
Upon completion of the project, these funds will be reimbursed to Fund 112 by the
Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT).
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This item has been reviewed and approved by the
County Attorney's Office, is not quasi-judicial and requires no ex parte disclosure,
requires only a majority vote for approval, and is otherwise legally sufficient for Board
action.-SRT
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMP ACT: There IS no growth management impact
associated with this Executive Summary.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners award Bid #09-
5228 to Vila & Son Landscaping Corp. for "CR 951 South of Jolley Bridge Landscape
and Irrigation Installation" in the amount of $441,019.93 and authorize its Chairman to
execute the standard contract after review by the County Attorney's Office.
Prepared By: Liz De Leon, Project Manager, ATM Department
Attachment: Bid Tab #09-5228